Posted on 09/16/2022 8:28:49 PM PDT by aimhigh
From the decision:
"In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to “the freedom of speech.” But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech. The implications of the (Internet's) platforms’ argument are staggering. On the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business."
"Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings."
(Excerpt) Read more at ca5.uscourts.gov ...
Very well written and clear decision. A wonderful victory!
This decision is a big deal.
Texas is a big state. FB, Google and Twitter may have to cordon it off because they will not give up censorship.
I’m curious how this will impact Free Republic. Will it force it to be overrun with liberals (bots?)?
“I’m curious how this will impact Free Republic. Will it force it to be overrun with liberals (bots?)?”
No, because machines (bots) do not have rights.
We already have free speech here.
This decision would most likely apply to all the states under the 5th District.
Quoting the conclusion:
“The First Amendment protects speech: It generally prevents the government from interfering with people’s speech or forcing them to speak. The Platforms argue that because they host and transmit speech, the First Amendment also gives them an unqualified license to invalidate laws that hinder them from censoring speech they don’t like. And they say that license entitles them to pre-enforcement facial relief against HB 20.
We reject the Platforms’ attempt to extract a freewheeling censorship right from the Constitution’s free speech guarantee. The Platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech. They’re not entitled to pre-enforcement facial relief. And HB 20 is constitutional because it neither compels nor obstructs the Platforms’ own speech in any way. The district court erred in concluding otherwise and abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
That is a very nice read.
I’m on page 10 and it’s all in layman’s terms.
Anyone can read this.
“I’m curious how this will impact Free Republic.”
Bearing in mind that I haven’t read the decision, it’s late, I’m tired, and I turned the computer off to go to bed and turned it back on to post this:
I’m not sure... it depends but I’m not sure on what.
A lot of what you might call “opposing views” are already posted here, but with Barf Alerts or other such comments. Then we make fun of or belittle or tear them apart.
And by it’s stated purpose FreeRepublic is established for different reasons than places like Facebook, Twitter and whoever. The Society for Electrical Engineers might be required to admit electrical engineers of different races, nationalities, sexes and so forth, but I don’t think they’d be required to admit plumbers.
The law requires 50 million active users in a month for it to be applicable.
These are not private corporations. These are government partnerships.
“We already have free speech here.”
Do we?
How many have had accounts disabled over the years?
I think there is a huge difference between what FB does and people getting zotted here. But I see your point.
Actually we have Administrators that determine what is permitted speech and what is not.
And, We have Free Republic Dogma.
Any post that mentions single words deemed to be opposition to the Dogma will be severely attacked and the poster harassed to oblivion.
So, there is not Free Speech on Free Republic
“We already have free speech here.”
not really ... i kept getting censored for explaining how to get ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine from india ... i used to donate to FR regularly, but quit after being censored simply for trying to help people survive covid ...
interestingly, others were NOT censored for providing the same information, so the censorship here seems to be inconsistent, based on the whims of the various mods ...
Wonderful work Texas. The legislation set out in the decision seems really well crafted, reasonable, and a great benefit to free speech and transparency. It also unleashes junk yard dog attorneys to enforce with attorneys fees recoverable. No wonder big tech is paying millions in attorney’s fees to fight it. Here’s to Texas!!!
You can’t post articles from certain sources. Zero Hedge articles can’t be posted. I have other articles from other sources posted and then taken done. Its ok though its a wonderful resource and I contribute to keep it going because it is one of the few places to get a broad overview of news with intelligent and reasonable comments. Also without weeding through click bait.
“No, because machines (bots) do not have rights.”
The next step is for states to pass laws making the use of bots a criminal offense. I think 10 years in prison for the use of each bot, the sentences to run consecutively.
It’s my understanding that bot masters use malware to infect computers of normal people. Then these computers are remotely controlled - hijacked - by the “master” to attack individuals, organizations and businesses. The entire affair is a criminal operation that starts with the theft of individual computers.
If my understanding of the criminal bot operation is wrong, feel free to jump in and correct me.
Thanks for linking the actual decision! I wish everyone would do that when talking about court decisions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.